6. INFRALAPSARIANISM AND SUPRALAPSARIANISM

Among those who call themselves Calvinists there has been
some difference of opinion as to the order of events in the Divine plan. The
question here is, When the decrees of election and reprobation came into
existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of
these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they
contemplated merely as men whom God would create? According to the
infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed (1) to
create; (2) to permit the fall; (3) to elect to eternal life and blessedness a
great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He
left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their
sins; (4) to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
(5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was
purchased by Christ. According to the supralapsarian view the order of events
was: (1) to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to
life and to condemn others to destruction; (2) to create; (3) to permit the
fall; (4) to send Christ to redeem the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to
apply this redemption to the elect The question then is as to whether election
precedes or follows the fall.

One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme
is to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole
of God's dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism
over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea cannot be
consistently carried out, e.g., in creation, and especially in the fall. It was
not merely some of the members of the human race who were objects of the decree
to create, but all mankind, and that with the same nature. And it was not merely
some men, but the entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism
goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other.
Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other
facts.

In regard to this difference Dr. Warfield writes: "The
mere putting of the question seems to carry its answer with it. For the actual
dealing with men which is in question, is, with respect to both classes alike,
those who are elected and those who are passed by, conditioned on sin; we cannot
speak of salvation any more than of reprobation without positing sin. Sin is
necessarily precedent in thought, not indeed to the abstract idea of
discrimination, but to the concrete instance of discrimination which is in
question, a discrimination with regard to a destiny which involves either
salvation or punishment. There must be sin in contemplation to ground a decree
of salvation, as truly as a decree of punishment. We cannot speak of a decree
discriminating between men with reference to salvation and punishment,
therefore, without positing the contemplation of men as sinners as its logical
prius."6363 The Plan of Salvation, p. 28.

And to the same effect Dr. Charles Hodge says: "It is a
clearly revealed Scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no
condemnation .... He hath mercy upon one and not on another, according to His
own good pleasure, because all are equally unworthy and guilty. . . Everywhere,
as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28,
reprobation is declared to be judicial, founded upon the sinfulness of its
object. Otherwise it could not be a manifestation of the justice of God."6464 Systematic Theology, II, p. 318.

It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that
innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to
eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved and the lost should
not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly
sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it
is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially His
justice, holiness, and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is
limited, although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit
sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either
system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into
contradiction.

The Scriptures are practically infralapsarian,—Christians
are said to have been chosen "out of" the world, John 15:19; the potter has a right over
the clay, "from the same lump," to make one part a vessel unto honor, and
another unto dishonor, Romans 9:21; and the elect and the non-elect are regarded as being originally
in a common state of misery. Suffering and death are uniformly represented as
the wages of sin. The infralapsarian scheme naturally commends itself to our
ideas of justice and mercy; and it is at least free from the Arminian objection
that God simply creates some men in order to damn them. Augustine and the great
majority of those who have held the doctrine of Election since that time have
been and are infralapsarians,—that is, they believe that it was
from the mass of fallen men that some were elected to eternal life while others
were sentenced to eternal death for their sins. There is no Reformed confession
which teaches the supralapsaian view; but on the other hand a considerable
number do explicitly teach the infralapsarian view, which thus emerges as the
typical form of Calvinism. At the present day it is probably safe to say that
not more than one Calvinist in a hundred holds the supralapsarian view. We are
Calvinists strongly enough, but not "high Calvinists." By a "high Calvinist" we
mean one who holds the supralapsarian view.

It is of course true that in either system the sovereign
choice of God in election is strewed and salvation in its whole course is the
work of God. Opponents usually stress the supralapsarian system since it is the
one which without explanation is more likely to conflict with man's natural
feelings and impressions. It is also true that there are some things here which
cannot be put into the time mould,—that these events are not in
the Divine mind as they are in ours, by a succession of acts, one after another,
but that by one single act God has at once ordained all these things. In the
Divine mind the plan is a unit, each part of which is designed with reference to
a state of facts which God intended should result from the other parts. All of
the decrees are eternal. They have a logical, but not a chronological,
relationship. Yet in order for us to reason intelligently about them we must
have a certain order of thought. We very naturally think of the gift of Christ
in sancification and glorification as following the decrees of the creation and
the fall.

In regard to the teaching of the Westminster Confession,
Dr. Charles Hodge makes the following comment: "Twiss, the Prolocutor of that
venerable body (the Westminster Assembly), was a zealous supralapsarian; the
great majority of its members, however, were on the other side. The symbols of
that Assembly, while they clearly imply the infralapsarian view, were yet so
framed as to avoid offence to those who adopted the supralapsarian theory. In
the 'Westminster Confession,' it is said that God appointed the elect unto
eternal life, and the rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of His own will whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy
as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass
by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His
glorious justice: It is here taught that those whom God passes by are 'the rest
of mankind; not the rest of ideal or possible men, but the rest of those human
beings who constitute mankind, or the human race. In the second place, the
passage quoted teaches that the non-elect are passed by and ordained to wrath
'for their sin.' This implies that they were contemplated as sinful before this
foreordination to judgment. The infralapsarian view is still more obviously
assumed in the answer to the l9th and 20th questions in the 'Shorter Catechism.'
It is there taught that all mankind by the fall lost communion with God, and are
under His wrath and curse, and that God out of His mere good pleasure elected
some (some of those under His wrath and curse), unto everlasting life. Such has
been the doctrine of the great body of Augustinians from the time of Augustine
to the present day."6565 Systematic Theology, II, p. 317.